One of the problems with misinformation is that it rarely sounds completely ridiculous. Although having said that these days nothing surprises me any more.

If someone came onto Instagram and said:

“Vegetables are killing you because broccoli is secretly working for Big Pharma.”

Most people would probably keep scrolling… at least you would hope so.

The more successful misinformation usually contains just enough truth to make the bullshit surrounding it sound plausible. Most of the videos I debunk often contain a grain of truth, however the influencer or chiropractor will do some mental gymnastics and come to a completely ridiculous conclusion that will usually be a problem that “oh what’s that” they just so happen to sell the solution to”… Shock horror.

Once you’ve spent enough time looking at health misinformation, you start noticing something else:

The same tricks appear again and again.

Different influencer.

Different topic.

Same playbook.

So rather than debunking one claim today, I want to show you five of the tricks to look out for.

Because once you recognise them, they’re surprisingly difficult to unsee. And this is actually a better way of helping you in the long run so that you can spot the misinformation for yourself.

1. The Straw Man

A straw man is when you misrepresent someone’s actual argument, replace it with a weaker or more extreme version, and then attack that instead.

For example:

Actual position:
Calories matter for changes in body weight.

Straw man:
“So calories-in-calories-out says 100 calories of broccoli and 100 calories of sweets are exactly the same.”

Nobody knowledgeable about energy balance is arguing that.

Foods with identical calories can have very different effects on satiety, protein intake, thermic effect, micronutrients, palatability and therefore how much you subsequently eat.

That doesn’t invalidate energy balance.

But attacking that caricature is much easier than engaging with the actual argument.

When you hear someone say “So what you’re saying is…” pay very close attention to what comes next.

2. The Red Herring

This is one of my favourites because you’ll see it EVERYWHERE once you know what you’re looking for.

A red herring introduces something that may sound relevant but doesn’t actually answer the original question.

Imagine someone claims:

“Seed oils cause inflammation.”

You ask:

“Can you show me human trials demonstrating that increasing linoleic acid increases inflammatory markers?”

And they reply:

“Well do you know how canola oil is manufactured, did you know it was used as a machine lubricant?”

That’s interesting.

But it isn’t what you asked.

How something is manufactured doesn’t demonstrate that consuming it causes inflammation.

the conversation has quietly moved somewhere easier to defend.

Yes, rapeseed oil has historically been used as a lubricant.

But hilariously, so has beef tallow which is often what the same people are telling you to replace seed oils with.

More importantly, neither fact tells us whether eating either of them is good or bad for human health.

Something having an industrial use doesn’t demonstrate that it’s harmful to consume. That’s the red herring.

The original claim was that seed oils cause inflammation.

So drag the conversation back to the question they conveniently abandoned:

What happens to inflammatory markers and health outcomes when humans actually consume them?

3. The Appeal to Nature

This might be the health and wellness industry’s favourite trick.

The argument basically goes: Natural = good. Synthetic = bad.

You will see people say, “Raw milk is how nature intended us to drink it”while calling seed oils “industrial waste”.

Another influencer will claim “You should only eat ingredients you can pronounce” despite not being able to pronounce cholecalciferol (which is just vitamin D3)

You see “natural” tells you almost nothing about whether something is safe.

Arsenic is natural. Botulinum toxin is natural. Poisonous mushrooms are natural.

Meanwhile, plenty of decidedly unnatural things have dramatically improved human health.

The same trick appears when someone lists the chemical name of an ingredient to make it sound terrifying.

“Would you really put DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE into your body?”

Hopefully.

It’s water.

Whether something is natural, synthetic, processed or difficult to pronounce doesn’t tell us whether it’s harmful.

The dose, exposure and evidence matter.

So whenever someone’s main argument is:

“Look how natural this is…”

or

“Look how processed that is…”

ask the more important question:

Does the evidence actually show that one causes better or worse health outcomes?

4. The False Dichotomy

A false dichotomy is when someone presents you with two options as though they’re the only possibilities, when reality is far more complicated.

You see this constantly in health misinformation.

“Obesity isn’t about calories. It’s about hormones.”

Why can’t both matter? Since they do..

Hormones can influence hunger, energy expenditure and how much we eat.

But energy balance still determines whether stored energy increases or decreases. We aren’t ignoring insulin when we explain energy in vs energy out. Insulin impacts this equation so yes it matters, but it’s not an either-or scenario.

Or:

“High cholesterol isn’t the problem. Inflammation is.”

Again, why are these being presented as mutually exclusive?

Multiple factors can contribute to cardiovascular disease at the same time.

That’s the trick.

By framing the argument as:

“It’s not X. It’s Y.”

you’re pushed into choosing a side when there often isn’t one.

Human physiology doesn’t generally work in neat either/or categories.

So whenever you hear:

“They told you it was X, but it’s actually Y…”

ask yourself:

Has the evidence actually ruled out X — or have I just been presented with a choice I never needed to make?

5.Moving the Goalposts

This is perhaps the easiest way to spot someone who isn’t genuinely interested in whether their belief is true.

You provide the evidence they requested...

…and suddenly that evidence isn’t enough. “Show me a study.” they aggressively ask.

You show them one.

“Yeah, but who funded it?”

You show them independently funded research.

“Yeah, but observational research doesn’t prove causation.”

You show them randomised trials.

“RCTs don’t represent the real world.”

You show them real-world data.

“You can’t trust the scientific establishment anyway.”

Congratulations.

We’ve arrived at a position where no possible evidence could change their mind.

And that’s important.

Because science isn’t about defending your position at all costs.

It’s about asking:

What evidence would make me change my mind?

If the answer is nothing, we’re no longer doing science (you are probably now bio hacking).

Anywhooooo

This is why I think learning to spot misinformation is more useful than simply trying to memorise hundreds of individual studies.

You shouldn’t need a degree in nutrition, medicine or exercise physiology to recognise when someone is using a shit argument.

Today it’s seed oils and peptides. Tomorrow it’s cortisol and collagen.

Next week it’ll be microplastics in your deodorant, parasites causing every disease known to humanity or a £79 supplement that apparently fixes your mitochondria.

The claims change.

The tricks don’t.

And research into misinformation actually suggests there is value in teaching people these manipulation techniques before they encounter them, an approach known as inoculation or prebunking.

So next time you see an extraordinary health claim online, don’t just ask:

“Is this true?”

Ask:

What evidence have they actually provided?

Does that evidence demonstrate the claim they made?

And are they trying to convince me with evidence or with one of the tricks above?

Because being able to recognise bullshit is considerably more useful than waiting for someone else to debunk it for you.

Now, I’ve created a free 2-minute quiz that identifies the health and diet trap you’re most likely to fall into — whether you’re constantly chasing the next quick fix, jumping between conflicting plans, trying to do everything perfectly or avoiding things because you’ve been scared into thinking they’re harmful.

You’ll get your result immediately, along with what that pattern might be getting in the way of and what to focus on instead.

Take the free quiz here → QUIZ

And don’t worry.

There isn’t a fifth result called “I’m far too intelligent to fall for misinformation.”

Because that’s probably the biggest red flag of all. C*nts xx

I see a lot of red flags online, whether that is someone wearing orange-tinted glasses or demonising seed oils, it seems that many people are choosing to get ahead in the health and fitness industry by playing into the algorithm, which seems to reward negative content, extremes and a distinct lack of nuance and evidence.

If someone is confidently pushing BPC-157 as a breakthrough healing compound, they are already telling you they are probably not a serious voice in health science.

Not because every peptide is nonsense.
Not because recovery medicine is fake.
And not because all experimentation is bad.

But because the actual evidence behind BPC-157 is nowhere near strong enough to justify the certainty with which it is marketed online.

And once you look into the history of it, the entire thing starts to look far less impressive than the fitness industry wants you to believe. Now, since I know most of you aren’t willing to waste your time going down the rabbit hole that is the internet to find out what the research says, I thought I’d spend my weekend doing it for you, to create this document so that you can have the full picture and make up your own mind.

So what actually is BPC-157?

BPC-157 stands for Body Protection Compound-157.

It is a synthetic peptide, a chain of 15 amino acids, originally associated with research on compounds found in human gastric juice.

One of the first things people get wrong is claiming that it is “naturally occurring” in the body. Which, sadly, it isn’t.

The version people buy online and inject into themselves is not some naturally circulating healing molecule. It is a synthetic, lab-made peptide derived from a “proposed” sequence associated with stomach-protection research.

That distinction matters because a lot of the marketing tries to frame it as if you are simply “restoring” something natural to the body. But you are not.

You are injecting an experimental synthetic peptide. Remember, insulin is a peptide, but it is made in the body. GLP-1 is a peptide; our bodies produce GLP, but BPC157 is a proposed sequence; our bodies do not produce it. So not exactly off to a great start.

When we look at the history of BPC157 research, we find a huge percentage traces back to one interconnected research group in Croatia, centred around Professor Predrag Sikirić and collaborators at the University of Zagreb.

Again, that alone does not mean the research is fraudulent. But it absolutely should make you more cautious. Because science becomes trustworthy through independent replication. Different institutions, different countries, different teams, all reproducing the same findings over time.

That largely never happened with BPC-157! A bit odd, don’t you think, especially given the claims.

I mean, according to the internet, BPC-157 can:

• heal tendons

• repair ligaments

• regenerate nerves

• heal the gut

• improve inflammation

• accelerate muscle recovery

• protect the brain

• improve blood vessels

• help liver damage

I mean, don’t you think if it did all that, we would have everyone looking at studying it and figuring out a way to profit from the drug? Come on, we can disagree about many things, but not the greed of man. But instead for decades, much of the literature has continued to revolve around the same institutional network, producing study after study with varying results. Yet the claims seem to be just getting more miraculous by the week.

At a certain point, anyone with some level of critical thinking should become more sceptical, not less. If we have learned anything from marketing and dieting culture over the years, it is that the more grandiose the claim, the more likely it is that you are overpaying for some tea that will likely just make you shit yourself.

The same people promoting BPC-157 often argue that: “Big Pharma profits from everything.” Which raises an obvious question.

If BPC-157 genuinely had the near-miraculous healing properties people claim it does… why has it not become a major pharmaceutical product after more than 30 years? Surely it is when Big Pharma get involved, you know that shit works, just look at GLP-1s.

But with BPC-157, we still have no large-scale human trials, no mainstream clinical development, no approved therapeutic pathway and no serious commercial rollout. Instead, we have a bunch of chiropractors, online fitness coaches, and biohackers making ridiculous claims, all while clinging to anecdotal evidence.

And this is usually where the conversation shifts into: “The government wants you sick.” “They can’t patent health”, or “They’re suppressing it.”

So Big Pharma want to make money except in this case, and now instead it is Big Gov that wants you sick. Hard to argue with that.

Pharmaceutical companies aggressively pursue profitable compounds at all times. If BPC-157 truly produced dramatic healing outcomes in humans, there is no coherent financial argument for ignoring it. This brings us to the old philosophical problem-solving principle, Occam’s razor, which essentially states: the simplest explanation is usually the best one. And in this case, it’s that it doesn’t work.

You can choose to wear a tin foil hat if you want, and desperately argue that it works, but they have suppressed the science, and in fact, Big Gov are actually paying off Big Pharma to not release the drug or some backwards rational that helps you sleep at night, but while you are still reading, let’s just talk about what the studies we do have say.

And to start with, let’s point out the elephant in the room. The evidence in humans is weak. I mean weak, like an 80-year-old struggling to get out of a chair, weak.

This is the part that gets buried underneath the avalanche of TikTok clips, podcast snippets, and “bro trust me, it healed my shoulder in two weeks” testimonials. Because once you actually strip away the anecdotes and look at the hierarchy of evidence, the entire BPC-157 conversation starts falling apart very quickly.

Most of the positive evidence comes from: rats, mice, cell cultures and mechanistic models.

Now, before someone screams, “but animal studies matter,” yes, of course they do. Animal studies are useful for generating hypotheses. Mechanistic studies are useful for understanding possible pathways. They can help point researchers in interesting directions. But they are not remotely the same thing as demonstrating meaningful clinical outcomes in humans.

And this is where people online either intentionally mislead you or simply expose that they do not understand how medical evidence works.

The graveyard of medicine is filled with compounds that looked incredible in rodents and then completely failed in humans. In fact, depending on the field being studied, estimates suggest that somewhere between 90–95% of drugs that show promise in preclinical animal research never successfully translate into approved human treatments. Think about that for a second. The overwhelming majority fail.

Why? Because humans are not giant mice. Shocking, I know.

Our physiology is more complex, our disease models are messier, our environments are different, and outcomes that look dramatic in tightly controlled rodent studies often become tiny, inconsistent, or completely meaningless once tested properly in humans.

And yet with BPC-157, people take rodent tendon studies and immediately jump to:

“This peptide heals injuries.” “This is regenerative medicine.” Or my favourite “Doctors don’t want you knowing about this”… Yes, doctors, the ones who have to treat your injuries and illnesses, I’m sure they want to make their lives harder by depriving you of a cure-all drug. Make that make sense.

What we actually have is preliminary preclinical data that may justify further research. But that is a completely different statement from the one we hear as people tell you to start injecting this now, use my link in bio.

The few human studies that do exist are generally small, limited in scope, poorly replicated, and have largely gone nowhere afterwards. Which, again, should tell you something (and again they all seem to come from the same lab in Croatia… which is a bit odd).

Because if this compound genuinely produced dramatic healing outcomes in humans, we would expect one thing above all else: More serious research, more institutions, more funding, more independent trials, more pharmaceutical interest, and more clinical progression. Not more cunts online with fuck all qualifications trying to ram it down your throat.

People on the internet are behaving as though the conclusion has already been reached, while the actual human science still hasn’t properly begun.

A huge problem with anecdotal recovery stories is that many injuries improve naturally over weeks and months anyway. If someone injects five different compounds, changes their rehab, sleeps better, lowers training volume, and their tendon improves three months later, that is not proof the peptide worked. And we haven’t even mentioned the power of the placebo effect.

Then we arrive at the final issue that almost nobody online wants to talk about properly: the unknown risks. One of the most irresponsible things happening in online fitness culture right now is people talking about BPC-157 as though it is essentially risk-free simply because it is a peptide. That is not how biology works.

BPC-157 appears to interact with pathways involved in: angiogenesis (blood vessel formation), cell signalling, tissue repair, inflammatory pathways and nitric oxide regulation. While that may sound exciting if you are desperate to recover from tendon pain, have we just forgotten that all drugs that work carry side effects and risks? If you interfere with growth, repair, and vascular signalling in the body, there is always the possibility of unintended downstream consequences.

And the uncomfortable truth is this: we do not have enough long-term human data to confidently understand what those consequences might be. Could there be risks involving abnormal tissue growth? Possibly. Could there be unintended vascular effects? Potentially. Could there be interactions with tumour growth pathways? We genuinely do not know.

And that uncertainty matters. A lot. I am baffled not only by how confidently people speak online without the evidence to back up their claims, but also by the complete disregard for mentioning the potential risks. Most of them treat it like a protein shake, because it’s natural, it’s just a chain of amino acids after all. The irony is that a lot of these people also demonise protein powders because they aren’t natural. Yup, I hate the internet.

The people injecting this compound into themselves and telling you to do the same are not participating in some cutting-edge, evidence-based health optimisation protocol. They are effectively acting as uncontrolled test subjects in a giant internet experiment fuelled mostly by anecdotes, marketing, and wishful thinking.

To be clear, this is not an argument against all peptides. Some peptide therapies may eventually prove extremely useful medically. Some already are. And none of this means BPC-157 is definitely useless. It may eventually prove clinically valuable. But that is very different from pretending the evidence already justifies widespread use.

But that is exactly why evidence standards matter. The issue is not experimentation itself. The issue is people speaking with a level of certainty that the evidence simply does not justify. And if someone is confidently selling you BPC-157 as a miracle healing compound today, they are not showing you that they are ahead of the science.

They are showing you that they are comfortable ignoring it.

I recently developed shingles… Yup, fucking shingles of all things. How’s your 2026 going?

Now, don’t worry, this isn’t going to be an article about shingles or a piece about my struggles with it or how life is hard. No, not at all, life is always going to be challenging at times, but hey, that’s part of playing the game, and let’s be honest, there will always be people who have a worse hand than yours.

The reason I mention my shingles is that it is incredible how many people have offered me unsolicited advice (non-medical, I might mention) on what I should do to boost my immune system at this time. Now, I want first to say I am grateful for the kind messages and friendly advice, no matter how ill-informed it usually is. But the notion of boosting one’s immune system is actually a bit of a misnomer and is usually just a way to sell you nonsensical supplements online.

Firstly, your immune system is a regulated network, not a single variable you turn up. It’s not a muscle that you can make stronger. Secondly, do you know what happens when your immune system is actually boosted? It’s called an overactive immune system and is usually accompanied by conditions like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and allergies. Yay, let’s all boost our immune systems… make that make sense.

This falls under a classic health halo, I mean, who wouldn’t want to strengthen their natural defences? But if a product actually boosted your immune system well, you can see it would not really be beneficial unless you were somehow immunocompromised, like in the cases of someone suffering from an immunodeficiency disorder or maybe a chemotherapy patient. Most of us don’t fall into this category, and therefore, more activation doesn’t equal more protection.

Your immune system is fantastically complex and carefully balanced. Vaccines can empower your body to effectively respond to specific pathogens, but there is no way to magically boost your immune system. So if you see the “immune boosting” phrase, there is a good chance someone is trying to sell you something you don’t need or can get naturally from your diet or lifestyle.

There is also the risk (for the more intellectually challenged people out there- let’s call them Americans and Australians) that if you buy into the product and believe that your immune system has truly been boosted, you will then forgo actual evidence-based strategies like vaccinations. This, as you hopefully worked out, is not a good outcome.

During the COVID pandemic, there was a dramatic rise in searches for and purchases of “immune-boosting” supplements, with many additional articles being published titled “How to boost your immune system” in reputable publications like The Times online or The Daily Mail (hopefully you got the sarcasm in that).

You see sadly, in this day and age, misinformation thrives, and people will continue to push immune boosting or Test Maxing or ancestral living, all while making money off of the gullible general population who are looking for quick fixes and continuing to ignore what actually works (Adequate sleep, sufficient calories/macros/micros, vaccinations, stress management, exercise).

I often advise my clients to focus on more fruits, vegetables, and other micronutrient-rich foods in their diets, especially when they are sick, to ensure they get enough vitamins and minerals to support immune health. It is also a time to focus on more rest/sleep. But the key is support, not boost. Trust me as someone with an overactive immune system, this is one outcome you do not want, although how the fuck I’ve got shingles makes no sense to me.

Anyway, cheers to 2026. And thanks for reading. I will continue to try to fight the good fight against misinformation and the gradual erosion of common sense. Thank you for your continued support.

Every Christmas, it happens.

You lean back from the table, button strained (or in some cases undone), plate cleared (apart from a few sad looking Brussel sprouts you’ve attempted to hide under your used napkin), utterly full. “Fuck I’m stuffed” you remark at which point if your mother is like mine you get a bit of angry side eye for your use of such language…(ironically she uses this word too although apparently its okay when she says it cause she then remarks “excuse my French” like that makings fucking sense… anyway I digress a little.

The host then gets up and asks, “Dessert?”
And while you pretend to say no for a split second the word that comes out of your mouth miraculously is yes!

Pudding appears. Maybe it’s mince pies. That tub of celebrations or Quality street that is being passed around, maybe you have Christmas Pudding … who knows but some decadent offering arrives… You are full by all accounts.. Yet somehow you find room.

We joke about having a “second stomach for dessert.”
But here’s the surprising thing: science says that idea isn’t completely wrong.

When we say we’re full, what we usually mean is that our stomach has stretched and our brain has received signals saying, “Enough of this food.” (okay that is the very unscientific version but fuck it this is a newsletter you aren’t being expected to use to much brain power for this one).

That fullness is partly physical—but it’s also specific to what we’ve been eating. After a long Christmas dinner, your body gets bored of savoury flavours, and familiar smells. Scientists call this sensory-specific satiety. In simple terms: your appetite for that meal drops sharply.

But dessert is different.

New flavours. New smells. Sweetness instead of salt.
Your brain perks up and says, “Ah. This is new. This is interesting.”

And just like that, appetite returns.

Your stomach doesn’t actually create extra space (no shit) but your brain adjusts how hungry you feel. Sweet foods activate reward pathways linked to pleasure and motivation, releasing dopamine and nudging you toward “just a little bit.” If someone had offered you more turkey you would have found the idea ridiculous… but something sweet?

That’s why dessert doesn’t feel like more eating.
It feels like a treat (we are ridiculous).

At Christmas when food is tied to comfort, nostalgia, and celebration that effect is even stronger. You’re not just eating pudding. You’re eating tradition (along with cheese, increased blood pressure and type 2 diabetes… ahhh only joking come on once a year its not an issue… but be honest is this behaviour just once a year?)

This also I think highlights a good test for you when maybe you crave food at work (usually in stressful situations). Would you reach for a few Brussel sprouts at that time, assuming you didn’t hate them? If the answer is no then you probably aren’t hungry you are just reacting to stress by trying to eat your emotions… step away from the biscuits and grab maybe a low calorie drink or go for a quick walk before diving back into work. If you were actually hungry you would be happy to reach for those Brussel sprouts (again assuming you didn’t hate them).

Anyway thought you might find that interesting ..No we don’t have two stomachs, and yes if you are looking to control food intake a reduction in food variety is usually a good way to go. How much plain Greek yogurt could you eat in one go? Probably not very much but you sprinkle some granola, peanut butter and dark chocolate in that… Holy Fuck you can eat a lot…

Look enjoy yourself this Christmas.. Try and fill up as much as possible on the offering of turkey, roast vegetables and as much of the non alcoholic low calorie drinks on offer… But if you want a bit of chocolate .. Well fuck it… it is Christmas after all…

Just don’t face fuck the cheese board and expect to feel good after it… And when you get a chance add some activity, get some good sleep and then sit down and figure out your goals for 2026… and why not get started ? Who says you have to wait till January to start?

Pregnancy is one of life’s miracles, and while I will never experience it myself (thank fuck), it is such a privilege to be able to help women through this time. First, I want to share what the research says about prenatal and postnatal resistance training so you have a better understanding of why you should be doing it. And there are two important lessons I have learnt during my time helping so many strong women that you wouldn’t read in any textbooks that I think are critical to know, so that you don’t set yourself up for failure at this time.

Let’s start with the basics: Strength training isn’t just okay during pregnancy and the postpartum period; for most women, it’s beneficial and supports physical comfort, labour readiness, recovery, and long-term health. As with most areas of health and fitness, myths and outdated advice still circulate. So let’s break down what science and expert guidelines actually say.

During the prenatal period, (appropriate) strength training can help:

1) Improve glucose control, lowering gestational diabetes risk, as well as decreasing the risk of infant macrosomia (excessively large infants… maybe you can call your husband or partner this next time they are behaving like a giant manbaby.. he won’t understand, but we will know) and childhood metabolic dysfunction associated with uncontrolled gestational diabetes.

2) Help alleviate some of the common symptoms of pregnancy, such as fatigue and lower risk of back pain and musculoskeletal discomfort.

3) Mood, energy, and quality of life improvements, including better sleep and psychological well-being.

4) Can lower the risk of pregnancy-related conditions such as gestational weight gain, gestational dyslipidaemia, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension, and improve labour and delivery outcomes.

5) Lowers maternal systemic inflammation, which reduces the exposure to the fetus, which can minimise the risk for adverse developmental outcomes.

6) And well stronger mothers tend to have more efficient labour/ lower rates of prolonged labour and improved postpartum recovery ….

So, really, it seems like a win-win. Good for you and good for the fetus/baby.

In the postnatal period, it is a key part of recovery (rebuilding core and pelvic floor strength, addressing any muscular imbalances, improving metabolic health and energy levels, and supporting the physical demands of caring for an infant) and overall health and longevity. I would say I can’t really draw from research, but I have seen it in many of the women I have worked with: it also improves confidence and skin appearance. Also, while it’s just correlation, I usually find that those who start exercising again are the ones who adopt better lifestyle and nutrition habits at this time, so they see the best results in body composition and health outcomes. I also think, maybe not in the short term but in the long run, you are setting an example for your kids, and isn’t it better to lead by example… (easy for me to say as someone with no dependents).

In terms of myths or the risks of strength training, let’s just quickly cover a few of these:

1) Lifting weights will harm the baby…. No – There is no evidence that appropriately prescribed resistance training harms the fetus in uncomplicated pregnancies. Studies consistently show no increased risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, or low birth weight when women follow established exercise guidelines.

2) “Pregnant women should avoid all heavy or loaded movements.”…. No- Exercises might have to be adapted to accommodate the growing bump and weight through pregnancy and any high risk exercises where there is a risk of falling or hitting the bump should be removed, BUT, women who were strength training before pregnancy can often continue modified versions of squats, hinges, presses, and pulls with appropriate intensity management, breathing, and posture. I have seen CrossFit athletes continue to hammer burpees throughout pregnancy and lift heavy (though this is person-dependent).

3) “If you didn’t lift before pregnancy, you shouldn’t start.” This is a misunderstood point- yes, we should take into account your current fitness and strength levels when starting. Still, previously sedentary women can (and should) safely begin low- to moderate-intensity resistance training during pregnancy. Research shows that starting exercise during pregnancy still provides meaningful health benefits. The key is progressive/ safe, and effective programming.

4) “Breastfeeding women shouldn’t strength train.”… NO.. Not sure where this myth came from, but I’m guessing someone started exercising really hard without adjusting their nutrition and recovery, which affected their breast milk supply. But it is clear moderate resistance training does not negatively affect milk supply- Hydration, adequate calorie intake, and recovery matter far more than exercise itself.

I’m sure many other myths persist, and I will cover these in another newsletter and do more articles on the changes we need to make to your training and nutrition at this time (if you find this interesting, that is… if not, I won’t. So remember to give this a like on Substack).

Before I go, I want to leave you with the two lessons I have learnt from coaching many women over this time.

Firstly, you might have every intention of smashing out 4 or 5 sessions a week once you get signed off to exercise again in the postnatal period. I can imagine you are very eager to get back to work on reattaining your pre-baby body… BUT… You now have a dependent, a little needy bundle of manic energy that is determined to be the centre of attention, committed to fucking up your sleep and making those first few months (years) a little more complicated. So, don’t set yourself up for failure; make a plan that accounts for your sleep deprivation and time-poor life. It helps to make this plan with your partner (unless you are lucky enough to have nannies, grandparents, or babysitters on hand) so your diaries align and you can give yourself a better chance of actually sticking to your new plan. I have seen the best intentions go up in flames as reality comes crashing down. This is not a criticism, more a lesson, ease yourself in, and if you end up having more time than expected, great, but maybe starting with a 3-day plan rather than a 5-day one is more realistic and doesn’t put you under more pressure than I’m sure you are already under.

Secondly, I can only imagine how frustrating it is in pregnancy when food aversion can make sticking to nutritious eating practices a little harder as you suddenly find dishes you usually love disgusting and apparently all you crave now is beige and heavy salted food (not saying this is a given I have heard many different food cravings and aversions, but lets be honest its not normally “ooooo I cant stand the smell of bread anymore and all I want to eat is broccoli and carrots”). It is important to remember why we are promoting healthy eating at this time: it is not for the bikini body you are usually desperately chasing, but for your health and the health of the growing fetus. (When we remind ourselves of this, it usually puts things in perspective and stops a bit of the usual complaining… although I can imagine it’s worth having a moan though). But we aren’t chasing perfection at this time; luckily, the body is quite smart and usually ensures the fetus gets the right level of micronutrients. So I’m not saying you can’t enjoy a slice of toast with butter, but if your current diet is just a palate of beige, we want to help improve it as best we can. Remember, the food we eat is what nourishes the body. We can find easy ways to introduce a little fruit, vegetables, and essential micronutrients without making too much effort.

1) Protein shakes or making flavoured yoghurt bowls with a load of berries/fruits and nuts/seeds thrown in is usually the easiest way to increase micronutrient and protein intake without asking too much of you.

2) Soups and bone broths (preferably home-made, but you can find good ones in most supermarkets) are a great way of increasing veg/micronutrient intake and fluids at this time.

3) Hummus/guacamole and carrot/celery/carrot sticks – great snack packed with lots of micronutrients.

4) Other foods to consider: Cottage cheese (soft texture, high in protein, B vitamins and calcium), Eggs (choline, protein, vitamin D and a very versatile addition to your diet), bananas and apples (easy snack options, high fibre, helping digestion).

Yes, food aversion and nausea can make it really hard, especially in the first trimester, but if your friend or even your kid was sick, I’m guessing you wouldn’t be saying to them, “Just eat chocolate and feel sorry for yourself”. I think it is crucial that we, therefore, try to treat ourselves as we would treat others at this point.

Anyway, just the advice of a man who will never experience pregnancy, so you can ignore it, but I thought it was worth sharing, as I have found that these two lessons have really helped many of my clients.

Any topics you want covered, please comment on Substack, and if you wish for more Pre/post postnatal newsletters, give this a like- this is free after all, I’m writing for you guys, so if you want more of a different topic, just let me know- you guys decide.

Also, let me remind you- the special offer for my online coaching is still running if you sign up before the start of 2026 – Choose your start date in 2026 and get one month free !! And nothing to pay till your start date, so don’t worry if you are really poor right now.

Anyway, much love – CUNT

December is marketed as a season of rest, generosity, and connection.
In practice, it often becomes the most exhausting month of the year—one that leaves people scrambling for New Year’s resolutions they already know won’t last.

For many, December means:
More food.
More spending.
More social commitments.
More obligations disguised as “tradition.”

And very little space to think.

This isn’t a personal failure; it’s a structural one. The end of the year amplifies patterns that already exist in our lives. If you tend to overcommit, December makes it obvious. If reflection is something you put off during the year, December crowds it out entirely. And if you’ve created a diet you hate and feel restricted by…. well, I can’t say I’m surprised when December snowballs into the “ahh, I’ve gained 3kg in the last month”.

Most people assume they’re tired in December because of the volume of activity. The real issue is a lack of intention.

We automatically say yes to events we don’t want to attend, to spending that creates January stress, and to routines that quietly disappear for weeks at a time. The calendar fills, but very little is consciously chosen.

The result is a paradox: a season meant for recovery becomes one we need to recover from.

The cost of December isn’t just financial—although January often reminds us of that.
It’s physical and mental.

December is rarely conducive to progress. Colder weather, social events, disrupted schedules, and constant access to “festive” food make maintaining consistency more challenging than usual. Add the emotional fatigue of a long year, and any unresolved stress you’ve been carrying, and it’s easy to slip into survival mode.

Sleep slips.
Movement becomes optional.
Routines loosen “temporarily.”

What’s framed as a short break quietly becomes a month of erosion.

By January, many people aren’t unmotivated—they’re depleted. And so January becomes about fixing December rather than building anything new. A better approach for December is to maintain rather than trying to optimise.

Most advice at this time of year focuses on adding:
New goals.
New habits.
New plans for the year ahead.

This is backwards.

December is not the month for improvement. It’s the month for maintenance.

The goal isn’t to get fitter, more productive, or more disciplined. The goal is simply not to lose ground—to protect the few routines and practices that keep you stable when everything else is noisy.

Maintenance doesn’t feel impressive, but it compounds. It means January starts from a position of clarity rather than damage control.

And often, the most effective way to maintain isn’t to add more—it’s to subtract. A simple December maintenance framework.

Not everything needs protecting. Just a few keystone practices that keep everything else from unravelling.

1. Protect one non-negotiable
Choose a single habit that keeps you steady when things get busy.
Sleep. Daily movement. Regular meals. A short walk. A simple morning routine.

This isn’t about perfection. It’s about continuity. If everything else loosens, this stays. I like clients to focus on step count and ensure calories are controlled on days with no social events.

2. Hold one clear boundary
December pressure usually comes from blurred edges—social, financial, and professional.

Decide in advance:

• One evening a week that stays unscheduled

• A spending cap you won’t justify past.

• A work cut off, you don’t “temporarily” extend.

Boundaries reduce decision fatigue, which is precisely why they matter when energy is low.

3. Lower one expectation
This is the most overlooked piece.

You do not need to perform at your peak in December.
You do not need your best pace, body composition, or output.

Lowering expectations isn’t quitting—it’s preventing unnecessary damage.

Missed gym sessions aren’t a problem if you’re staying active overall. A few festive treats aren’t a problem if your core diet doesn’t collapse. Maintenance provides flexibility without chaos.

Most people use January to undo what December eroded. That’s why goals feel heavy before they even begin. Maintenance changes the starting line.

If you protect your basics in December, January doesn’t need a reset. It can be a continuation. Clarity replaces urgency. Progress replaces repair.

So before asking what you want to achieve next year, ask something simpler:

What would I like not to have to fix in January?

That answer is usually the most honest—and the most useful.

If you need help, remember to email me to inquire about my special 1-1 coaching offer, which runs until the start of January. Or don’t, but 1 month free is quite a good offer if I do say so myself… CUNT

Well, you can interpret that title in multiple ways, can't you? For instance, we could discuss how many people are actively choosing to ask AI for assistance when it comes to designing their diets or exercise plans. And is this a good thing? Or this might be a chance to discuss the more inflammatory topic of how many personal trainers and fitness wankers are relying on AI to do their work for them. I understand that AI can help streamline your work and do some of the heavy lifting, but relying on it blindly when it is still capable of producing misinformation (which it does, as evidenced by the report RFK Jr. released, which cited studies that didn't even exist) seems a tad unwise.

Having said that, now that anyone can label themselves an online coach without having gone through even the most basic of training courses, well, the wealth of idiots coaching other idiots seems infinite.

If I am honest about AI, it worries me, but I also see the potential benefits of it, so I am not just an old, bitter man looking at new technology as the devil he doesn't know. I am going to try to concisely outline my rationale below... although, having said that, there is nothing concise about my rationale, so prepare for some thought vomit.

Let's start with the arguments in favour of AI.

1) Accessibility and affordability: Well, ChatGPT is free for the basic version, so if anyone wants a basic exercise template or diet plan, I guess it is a pretty cheap option. It can also answer your questions anytime, which is better than some coaches, I guess, who, once they have your money, become harder to get in contact with than that one tight mate we all have who seems to vanish anytime it's his turn to pay for paddle or the next round of drinks. Given that all you need is an internet connection and enough basic vocabulary to ask simple questions, it definitely ticks the affordable and accessible boxes.

2) If you are currently tracking any of your health metrics (heart rate, step count, calorie intake, sleep levels), it can analyse vast amounts of data and give you feedback or tailor workouts or recommendations. This can also help coaches focus more of their time on the human aspect of coaching and avoid getting bogged down in data analysis. It can also help spot trends that users might miss, like a drop in HRV signalling the need for less volume.

3) In theory, it should be able to give bias-free advice, although this isn't usually what happens because most people will add their personal bias into their prompts. "Show me evidence showing why the carnivore diet is superior for weight loss". (It should then read- system error, seek therapy- but sadly it will then churn out low-level evidence from anecdotal blog posts run by people with too much free time and not enough brain cells).

4) AI can be used to help automation and create promts for clients to help improve ease of habit formation and keep users engaged. Given that everyone now seems to have some form of diagnosed (official and self-identified) neurodiversity, it helps to have technology on our side to help keep clients engaged. A recent study found that AI nudging platforms increased daily steps by 6.17% (so it does work... although it makes me angry when mine tells me I have been sitting down for too long when I'm on the loo... no empathy).

5) Given how stupid many coaches are, the reliance and use of AI by many coaches may mean at least that the information isn't complete nonsense. Look, I say this honestly, a lot of "coaches" are influencers whose skills lie in tapping into stupid trends on TikTok or marketing themselves; however, when it comes to training and nutrition, their knowledge probably equates to my understanding of how my motorbike works. I know that I need to put petrol in it, and that if it stops working, I can call the AA, but outside of that, I can tell you fuck all. So, better to leave it to AI (although a bit ridiculous that they are selling something they didn't write and didn't even bother to learn or understand it)

.... and now the arguments against it.

I have already touched on a few, but let me see if I can expand on these a little.

1) If coaches are relying on it, they are putting all their trust in AI, which, as I've noted, is still subject to misinformation and can miss the whole picture. Think stress, injuries, emotions, actually, most of the human element that coaching should provide. So, there is a risk that you aren't actually getting the best service. When you pay for a coach, aren't you expecting to pay for their knowledge and expertise, rather than how well they can utilise AI? It seems odd, doesn't it?

2) AI is usually trained on population data, and therefore, there is a risk of overgeneralisation. Again, not a massive issue, but this is where you can't really outsource the knowledge, expertise and human approach of a good coach.

3) The risk, as more people come to rely on AI, is that we learn less for ourselves. If you continue to outsource decisions and the learning involved in coming to the answer yourself, then it can't be surprising that we have lost the art of common sense and logic.

4) Data privacy & security concerns. There is a risk now that, with everything being online, more and more of your data is accessible, and companies can use this to target you with different advertisements, or your health insurance premiums may increase or decrease. I am not going down this rabbit hole. I don't really care if Big Brother is watching me and knows about my step count. If it can lead to lower health insurance premiums, then this is an excellent way of getting people to take better care of themselves. However, this is part of the concern, as more of our lives move online, and I suppose there are more nefarious risks involved in our lives being hacked or monitored too closely (beyond the scope of this newsletter).

5) Most AI apps are not regulated as medical devices. Therefore, there is little oversight, so there are potential risks for bad information leading to eating disorders, injuries and health issues.

"Would you trust an algorithm with your health? I wouldn't on its own. I would definitely listen before consulting a credible professional for a second opinion.

The marriage of a qualified nutritionist or personal trainer with AI is how we should look to proceed, not relying on one or the other. "AI is a powerful assistant, but you should still be the decision-maker. The best results come when technology supports — not replaces — your own awareness."

Anyway just my opinion … you C*nt

Assuming you haven't been living under a rock, you've probably been hit with the sales pitch of training around your cycle over the last few years. No longer do you have to push through the pain of training during menstruation, the approach that women athletes have adopted for decades. Cycle syncing, instead, invites you to plan your exercise—and often, other lifestyle elements —around your menstrual cycle.

Sounds great, right? And when you factor in discussions of hormonal fluctuations and their impact on physiology, it becomes a compelling argument, one that I myself fell into a few years ago (when I was more naïve and had less hair on my chest).

In some ways, the drive for a more specific approach to advising women is a positive trend, as it highlights the apparent differences between the sexes and why a one-size-fits-all approach cannot always be assumed. Over the last three decades, we have seen a significant increase in women participating in sports, which is excellent. For example, the percentage of women competing at the Olympics has increased from 26% in Seoul in 1988 to 45% in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. The problem we have encountered is that performance-based research has not kept pace with this rise, and therefore, many of the practices used have been extrapolated from research conducted on male athletes.

Seems naïve, given the anatomical, physiological, and endocrinological differences between the sexes, but hey, women are just small men, right?

Cycle syncing then emerged, and, well, it made sense. With every woman's inner feminist instincts tingling, it is no surprise that it took off. Cycle-syncing programs frequently claim they're designed using the latest research on athletic performance throughout the cycle, but what does the research actually say? And what can or should we take away from it?

Now, before I proceed, I would like to briefly outline the different phases of the menstrual cycle, as various articles categorise them differently.

There are two distinct phases: the follicular phase (first half) and the luteal phase (second half); however, this is often further divided into early and late phases or broken down into menstruation, follicular, ovulation and luteal phases (why do people complicate everything).

The early follicular phase is the first 7 days of your cycle and is also referred to as menstruation. This time is characterised by low oestrogen and low progesterone levels. The late follicular phase is characterised by an increase in estrogen, while progesterone levels remain low. Ovulation typically occurs around the midpoint of your cycle, which is approximately day 14. After ovulation has occurred, we see a drop in oestrogen levels. This is the early luteal phase. Levels of oestrogen and progesterone then begin to increase, leading towards the late luteal or premenstrual phase of your cycle. If implantation doesn't occur, oestrogen and progesterone levels drop to prepare for the uterine lining to shed, starting your period and restarting the menstrual cycle.

In the largest meta-analysis to date (78 studies), which examined the effects of menstrual cycle phase on exercise performance, they found trivial group-level differences, noting that performance might be slightly lower in the early follicular phase (menstruation) compared to other phases. It is worth noting that they mentioned that methodological quality is generally low, resulting in widely varying results. As such, further research should be conducted while controlling for confounders to facilitate a deeper understanding of the effects of the menstrual cycle on exercise performance in individuals. (Interestingly, the sister meta-analysis, by the same authors, which looked at the effects of oral contraceptives (OCs) on exercise performance, showed that, compared with eumenorrheic women, OC users have, on average, slightly inferior exercise performance.  The endogenous hormonal profile of OC users is comparable to the profile seen during the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle in women not on contraception; therefore, training when you are on the pill is like training while menstruating !! Interesting, right?

Aside from this, most of the recent literature suggests that fluctuations in female reproductive hormones throughout the menstrual cycle do not affect muscle contractile characteristics. Most research also reports no changes over the menstrual cycle for the many determinants of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), including lactate response to exercise, body weight, plasma volume, haemoglobin concentration, heart rate, and ventilation. Therefore, the current literature indicates that VO2max is not affected by the menstrual cycle. Suggesting that regularly menstruating female athletes, competing in strength-specific sports and intense anaerobic/aerobic sports, do not need to adjust for menstrual cycle phase to maximise performance. In essence, cycle synching is bull-shit.

It is worth noting that during prolonged exercise in hot conditions, a decrease in exercise time to exhaustion is shown during the mid-luteal phase, when body temperature is elevated. Thus, the mid-luteal phase has the potential to negatively affect prolonged exercise performance through elevated body temperature and potentially increased cardiovascular strain. I'm not sure if that really applies to you in your air-conditioned gym doing a Pilates class, but if you are doing some form of prolonged cardio in extreme heat, it might be worth making sure you have the appropriate electrolytes and fuel on hand and reassessing your life choices anyway.

Another area to note is the changes in fuel utilisation depending on which phase of your cycle you are in. Several studies suggest a shift toward greater fat oxidation during the luteal phase and relatively more carbohydrate utilisation during the follicular phase, as elevations in oestrogen promote carbohydrate sparing and increased fat utilisation as an energy source. Practically, muscle glycogen storage and utilisation are generally more efficient in the follicular phase, so women may tolerate higher-carb meals better at this time. It also means that energy levels are slightly higher in the luteal phase (around 150-300 calories more), so make sure you are eating enough calories at this time so that exercise performance is less likely to be impacted, and make sure you are eating enough protein due to the catabolic effects of elevated levels of progesterone.

From what I have come to understand, cycle syncing can be a helpful lens, but it is not a law. The most extensive reviews show minor average effects of the cycle phase on performance. That means your best results come from listening to your body, tracking your own patterns, and making smart, small adjustments—especially around heat and symptom spikes. Keep the fundamentals—strength training, protein, sleep, and progressive overload—at the forefront. Understanding your natural rhythm can help you understand why energy or performance might be off; however, overanalysing this and not training hard for half of the month each month is the quickest way to slow progress and become frustrated by a lack of results.

Yes, you are not small men, but you are also not delicate flowers that need to avoid weights every time your hormones fluctuate. Listen to your body rather than following a cookie-cutter cycle syncing plan that ignores the individual differences inherent in each of us.

And if you need help creating a plan - well fucking drop me an email, you cunt ... info@tlc.fit

If, like me, you spend time on social media, then you have probably no doubt stumbled upon someone in a supermarket (usually either with crazy eyes or without a shirt or both) going down the oil section of the store. The latest trend aside from demonising seed oils, which is moronic when you actually look at the evidence showing what happens when humans consume them (which shows either a positive or neutral effect on our health) when calories are controlled, and they are replacing saturated fats with these oils. But now there is this conspiracy that all olive oils in the store are somehow fake or of poor quality.

The origin of this story, or myth, I should say, came from a 2010 non-peer-reviewed report by researchers at the University of California, which found that 69% of imported oils and 10% of California Oils marked as extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO) failed to meet the usual criteria for this label. They found that many of these oils were cut with less expensive olive oils, or worse, dangerous seed oils. Again, since you aren't an idiot, we know that these oils are certainly not hazardous to our health, but it makes quite convincing clickbait content, I have to admit.

It is worth noting that these findings have not been replicated and while I have read some very confusing and lengthy reports detailing the difficulties in maintaining the EVOO classification and the limitations in the current regulatory framework it appears that stricter regulations have been put in place in the EU and California so you don't have to worry about your EVOO being mislabelled. In Europe, to achieve the category of EVOO, the oil must comply with a range of parameters which are assessed by chemical and sensory tests using IOC methods and standards. The quality criteria evaluated in olive oil are free acidity, the peroxide index, ultraviolet (UV) absorption, fatty acid ethyl esters, and sensory characteristics. These basic quality parameters, together with composition in fatty acids and sterols as well as profiles in phospholipids, tocopherols, phenolic molecules, volatile compounds and so on, can offer information beneficial to check the authenticity of EVOO and possible fraudulent activities applied to it.

If you are worried, it is safer to look for one which contains olive oil from only one country of origin. But what we need to do is to recognise this fear-mongering and to ignore the underlying message, which is trying to stop you from using perfectly good oils in place of saturated fats like ghee or butter, which can increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. I am not saying butter will kill you, but given the health benefits surrounding the use of olive oil and even the other seed oils, it seems stupid to then remove them from your diet due to this narrative.

According to research, consumption of EVOO represents a simple but effective nutritional approach to modulating the deleterious effects of different cardiovascular risk factors, chiefly oxidative stress, inflammation, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and hyperlipidaemia.

Moreover, EVOO intake is inversely associated with the prevalence of cancer, as reported in a meta-analysis of 19 observational studies involving approximately 35,000 individuals and carried out within 10 years. There is also research showing it has neuroprotective effects, so … you can listen to topless plebs on the internet who think butter and raw meat are some cure-all… Or you can keep enjoying EVOO in your diet and ignore these twats (although be wary it is pure fat, so very calorie dense- so don't go crazy with it).

Anyway, happy Monday, you plebs, and thanks for taking the time to read my little newsletter x

Firstly, Collagen is a protein that accounts for up to 30% of the protein in our bodies. The word Collagen is derived from the Greek "kolla", which means glue. Think of it as the body's "scaffolding"—it provides structure, strength, and elasticity to our skin, joints, bones and tendons. There are currently 29 types of Collagen identified, but the main ones we are concerned with are:

Type I: skin, bone, tendons, ligaments

Type II: cartilage

Type III: skin, muscles, blood vessels

From our mid-20s onwards, collagen production naturally slows down. Research suggests we lose about 1% of our skin collagen per year, with an even steeper drop after menopause due to falling estrogen levels. On top of that, factors like UV exposure, smoking, poor diet, high sugar intake, and chronic stress accelerate collagen breakdown. The result? Thinner skin, wrinkles, stiffer joints, and weaker connective tissues over time.

It should not come as a surprise that Collagen is one of the supplements I get asked about the most. If social media is anything to go by, it is fast becoming one of the most popular supplements with every fitness wanker seemingly stirring it into their morning coffee or protein shake.

Now, my take for years has always been don't waste your money on it, taking Collagen doesn't mean more collagen production in your body simply because when you eat something it is broken down in the body, in the case of Collagen a type of protein it is broken down into amino acids, so taking Collagen doesn't mean more Collagen is suddenly available in the body. That's not how the body works, sadly. But every time I say this, I am usually met with a barrage of angry women telling me they have seen tremendous improvements in their skin as a result of supplementing with Collagen.

Now, the most likely reason for this is two-fold. If you start taking Collagen, you may also participate in other healthy practices that are actually fuelling the improvements. Someone who spends money on Collagen is clearly someone who cares about their appearance, right? So it is probably not a stretch to imagine they also might start drinking more water, eating more fruit (which contains lots of vitamin C and antioxidants that can help improve skin health and collagen production), and maybe they also start exercising. A lot of times, there is this synergistic effect on our behaviours, right, you don't start just doing one new healthy thing. It is like when people swear by the positive impact that Pilates had on their bodies and waistline, while they ignore the fact that when they got involved in the cult of Pilates, they also adopted a lot of the other healthy practices of the other Pilates princesses. (I am a fan of Pilates, so that is not me slagging it off).

Secondly, if you take something and believe it will help, well, have you ever heard of the placebo effect? The brain is amazing, and if you are convinced this expensive protein powder will suddenly have you pulling a Benjamin Button, then you may start to see some benefits. So great, it may work. Although we can't say this is Collagen working, but rather your ignorance is finally working in your favour.

Ahhh, but before we draw a line under it, let's go through the evidence because there is some in favour of it working. While I still believe it is a waste of money and you would be better off just making some bone broth, I am all for providing you with a more detailed picture so you can make an informed decision.

1) Skin: This one is anyone's guess if I'm honest. And I say that having read through a lot of shit. The problem with this is that study design, funding (which seems to be very apparent in research looking at Collagen), collagen type, amount and quality of research all play roles in this. Self-reported improvements in skin quality and hydration levels aren't considered strong evidence. While one meta-analysis concluded "a grouped analysis of studies showed favourable results of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation compared with placebo in terms of skin hydration, elasticity, and wrinkles", I have also found a non-industry funded meta-analysis that concluded: "there is currently no clinical evidence to support the use of collagen supplements to prevent or treat skin aging".

2) Joints and bone health: Again, a bit of a crap shoot, but I found research showing improvements in knee osteoarthritis with oral Collagen supplementation, which reduced pain and improved function. There is also evidence showing that osteopenic women reported increased BMD with specific collagen peptides over 12 months.

On the other hand, research has demonstrated that Collagen is shit for muscle protein synthesis (as it has a poor amino acid profile) and it does not further increase connective tissue protein synthesis rates.

So when I think about it, the positive results shown do make me believe that if you suddenly give an aged population more protein, this might help a little, but would these alleged benefits still appear if they were just given a whey protein powder instead? Also, rather than pushing overpriced questionable collagen powders, why not get people to walk more, resistance train and eat enough protein, calcium, vitamin D and magnesium, all of which will help bone health.

Look, what I tell my clients is if they want to take it, then go for it; it's not going to do them any harm, and if they believe it works, then maybe it will (although again this is more likely a placebo than anything else). It will also increase their intake of glycine, proline and hydroxyproline, which are abundant in collagen but sparse in other protein sources, so maybe it will help. It's generally well tolerated, although I would suggest choosing one that is third-party tested and avoid gummies (unless you are a fucking child). Also, there are no vegan versions, so if you stumble onto one, know that it is nonsense.

"Collagen isn't magic, but it isn't necessarily snake oil either. Think of it as a niche, adjunct supplement: potential evidence for small improvements in skin and knee osteoarthritis symptoms, possible help for bone density—provided you pick the correct type and it is a correctly dosed product, and give it 8–12 weeks. It shouldn't replace good protein, resistance training, sun protection, or evidence-based osteoarthritis care."

( noted recommendations based on research: Hydrolysed Collagen (type I/III) for skin: 2.5–10 g/day for 8–12+ and Hydrolysed Collagen for joints: 5–10(–15) g/day)

If you want help improving your diet and lifestyle without parting with money on questionable supplements, well, email me info@tlc.fit

you cunt

If you told me a few years ago there would be people demonising vegetables, I wouldn't have been surprised (I mean, my expectations are pretty low when it comes to the intellect of the general population), but I would have assumed it would fall on deaf ears. The evidence is pretty concrete, most of us aren't eating enough fibre and those who do see the most benefits in terms of health outcomes, like a reduction in all-cause mortality. So, while there will always be a select few who will believe anything (like flat earthers), I would never have anticipated it becoming a movement to the extent that this carnivore debacle has. I mean, even doctors, and I'm not just talking about moronic chiropractors, but actual doctors are getting involved. Jordan Peterson, a man whose books I loved and who is clearly very smart, has somehow fallen for this impressively idiotic narrative.

Look, let me clear up one thing quickly... we are all different, we all have different genetics, different gut microbiomes, and therefore there doesn't exist one perfect diet for everyone. So, there might be a few people out in the world who have intolerances to most plant foods (like Jordan Peterson's daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, who suffered from horrendous autoimmune conditions until she went on a carnivore diet). But while there are exceptions to the rule, this doesn't discount the overwhelming evidence in support of eating more fruits and vegetables. Many people who go on the carnivore diet, which is a form of an exclusion diet, may feel better because they have removed something they were intolerant to (and also will have just removed a lot of ultra-processed shit from their diet). To then jump to the conclusion that all plants are trying to kill us is... well, how to put this politely... fucking stupid.

I understand people's confusion because if you are suffering and then suddenly feel better, emotions may dominate your rationale. Then common sense goes out the window (assuming you had any to begin with). The problem lies in this almost religious-like conversion that takes place. The carnivore dieter who now feels great, claiming some miracle has occurred, tied in with an increasing narrative of a big conspiracy of government and food agencies lying to us and boom the narrative starts to gain momentum..... (might explain why they can ignore the mountains of evidence in humans that completely disproves this idiocy).

I wouldn't have a problem with this on its own because "you do you", I don't care what you eat if you aren't my client. But with the development of a new dietary religion, well, the inevitable wave of new misinformation floods social media. Then we see an increase in disordered eating and more people are more confused about who to trust and what to do. I then get the inevitable barrage of videos sent to me claiming that butter cured their (insert every health condition).

So in today's newsletter, I want to go through the myth of plant toxins so that you can smile politely next time someone tries to talk you out of enjoying your fresh salad and walk away so that their stupidity doesn't rub off on you.

Kale contains plant toxins, defence chemicals and antinutrients, sounds scary, right? The moronic influencer will then list off things like phytates, oxalates, lectins or even phytoestrogens, twisting the science, telling you these will slice up your gut lining, cause kidney stones or sap nutrients from your body... but what does the actual research show?

1) Antinutrients: compounds like phytates and oxalates are considered antinutrients because they are naturally found in food as salt, bound to minerals (calcium, zinc, iron), which hinders their absorption. But, and this is a big but, just because they might be harder to absorb doesn't mean they deplete our nutrient stores. These foods will still provide a net positive in terms of nutrients, so this is just complete nonsense. Also, since our gut bacteria do metabolise things like phytates and oxalates, a large proportion of the minerals bound to them are still bioavailable. So while the influencer will waffle on that foods like oatmeal are sapping nutrients from your body, the reality is this is simply wrong. That bowl of oatmeal will still provide you with a lot of micronutrients.

2) Phytates, while being portrayed as defence chemicals to avoid, actually, from the research, appear to have beneficial effects on our health. For example, a 2013 study showed that high phytate levels lowered the risk of osteoporosis in menopausal females. And a 2108 study showed that higher consumption of phytates reduced HbA1c in people with type 2 diabetes....so again this narrative that they are harmful appears to be waffle.

3) Oxalates found in foods like spinach are often blamed by idiots like Paul Saladino for kidney stones. However, this is not borne out in the research, with most of the oxalates in our urine coming from our bodies' natural production. A 2008 study concluded, "The impact of dietary oxalates on urinary oxalate appears to be small. For many stone formers, restricting dietary oxalate may be a relatively ineffective intervention to reduce urinary oxalate excretion". A study done in 2002, looking at healthy females who consumed five cups of spinach daily for three weeks, found that they did not develop kidney stones and also had lower levels of oxidative stress. If you are prone to kidney stones, talk to your doctor. For most of us, you can ignore the advice to avoid spinach and just make sure you stay hydrated, which is usually the best way to prevent kidney stones.

4) Lectins, another type of defence chemical, are a type of protein found in many plants — especially in seeds, legumes, and some grains that can bind to carbohydrates. Rather than bore you with all the details, there is some research that they can harm the gut and other research that they can benefit the gut and can inhibit cancer metastasis and tumour growth, along with improving serum lipids and blood sugar regulation. However, this is almost a moot point because most cooking practices inactivate most of them. Boiling, soaking, sprouting, and fermenting all reduce lectin activity to safe levels. Properly cooked beans, lentils, and grains generally have negligible active lectins. And as you are probably already aware, beans, lentils and seeds all offer concrete health benefits to the consumer. Hence, avoiding these because of lectins is like avoiding drinking water for fear of drowning. Yup, pretty fucking stupid.

5) Phytoestrogens are phytonutrients with a structure similar to oestrogen that can bind to oestrogen receptors in our body. Again, without going into too much detail, there is no evidence to suggest this causes bitch tits or man boobs (gynecomastia) in men, nor does it affect the onset of puberty in women or your fertility. Phytoestrogen-rich foods, such as soy, actually, according to the evidence, produce a lot of health benefits, from reducing the risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast, ovarian, prostate, and bowel cancer. So again, the complete opposite of what these fucktards are claiming.

If plants were trying to kill us, they are doing the worst job possible... it would be the equivalent of me repeatedly banging my head against the wall in the hopes that this would make me smarter....

Come to think of it, these people should try doing that and see if that helps them.

As always.. Thanks for reading, you c*nt

And if you fancy working with me 1-1 - there is a cheeky discount running between now and the start of September … so email me if you want to hear more… info@tlc.fit

I always grew up in a household that sat down and ate three meals a day, I then went to school that served three meals a day (although you could question how edible these were at times) and have continued to follow this into adulthood (let's ignore the university years). Assuming you didn't grow up in an impoverished country, it's likely you, too, grew up eating three square meals a day. And if it ain't broke, why fix it? Yes, we occasionally had a snack, but for the most part, meal times were consistent, structured and usually an opportunity to socialise, whether that be with family, school friends or even with colleagues.

The food landscape has changed, yes, we all know this, but we haven't just changed what we eat, or how much we eat. We have also changed when and where we eat. What was once reserved for dining rooms, cafeterias, and restaurants (and the occasional drive-through parking lot) now takes place everywhere. Convenient food/snack options are everywhere, and it appears nowhere is off limits in terms of where we consume food. In the bath, while walking around shopping centres, I've even witnessed people at my gym chomping on a protein bar while walking on the fucking treadmill. We have gone from three square meals to just a continual practice of shoving food down whenever we feel like it, which, thanks to the lack of satiety that most of these food options provide, seems to be all the fucking time. It's no real wonder people struggle with their weight. While yes, we can still overconsume calories if we only eat three meals a day, it does limit the risk if we aren't drip feeding calories into our bodies the rest of the day. Maybe a piece of fruit added between or a little bit of yoghurt or protein shake, but for the most part, three square satiating meals, and you already have the structure to at least limit the calorie onslaught that our food environment offers.

The evident inability to control our food intake has also spawned the inevitable advice by alleged health experts/biohackers and anyone who, for some odd reason, thinks their uneducated opinion is worth sharing, to start promoting some form of time-restricted eating. Intermittent fasting, one meal a day, alternate day fasts, water fasts, sugar fasts... anything you can think of, shove the word fast after it and suddenly you will have some equally moronic people following your advice. Usually, under the veil, this will create more autophagy in the body and if that doesn't convince you, well then let's start talking about our ancestors, who knew best (the same people who probably thought the earth was flat and that sticking leeches on their skin was a good practice...sure).

Let's quickly clear this up since it shouldn't take any real time at all. Evidence in humans has shown that intermittent fasting (or any version of time-restricted eating) doesn't provide any additional benefit compared to other diets, with metabolic and cardiovascular benefits attributable solely to the weight loss achieved. So, outside of its ability to help people create a calorie deficit (which it can help with), it offers no additional benefits. If you want to generate more autophagy beyond calorie restriction, make sure you are exercising.

I think eating three meals a day potentially with a snack around training is a better way of eating for your health and longevity than ever skipping a meal, so while we should all agree snacking like a glutonnous cunt is one of the worst things you can do for your waistline and health, let me explain why I usually try and get most of my clients to follow the old faithful three meals a day strategy, rather than the notion that skipping meals is somehow transformative.

Studies have repeatedly shown that eating breakfast is super beneficial for health (assuming it's not a vat of Fruit Loops). A 2019 meta-analysis showed that people who skip breakfast have a 22% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to people who eat breakfast every day, even after accounting for BMI. The more days a week you skip breakfast, the higher that risk becomes, reaching a ridiculous 55% if you skip it 4-5 times a week.

Authors of another meta-analysis calculated that people who regularly skip breakfast have a 32% higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to people who eat breakfast every day. Fuck.. seems like a no-brainer to me, also, if you are following the sound advice of a high-protein diet, well, this becomes virtually impossible if you are skipping meals (I would have to eat around 60-80g of protein at lunch and dinner just to get anywhere close... hello indigestion).

Breakfast is fantastic, not just because it includes eggs, pancakes, and oats, but it turns out that it is an essential regulator of our circadian rhythm and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Essentially, it will help improve your sleep cycle and create a healthier stress response, so you will be able to regulate your cortisol levels better.

A 2002 study showed that people who regularly skip breakfast had higher morning cortisol levels that remained elevated for longer than those who ate breakfast.

For those who have one meal a day (tits), a 2023 study showed that this way of eating actually increased the risk of all-cause mortality by 30% and the risk of cardiovascular disease by 83%. But if you believe that our ancestors knew best (Eddie Abbew), then keep eating like that...

Look, if you love intermittent fasting, it's probably better to skip dinner, but fuck that, going to bed hungry doesn't sound like a good option to be either.

Anyway, I feel like this became more of a rant than a newsletter. Still, hopefully, there are some valuable pointers hidden within my rant that you can take away to improve your current dietary practices.

As always, I've been Chris, and you, my friend, are a top cunt x

There are lots of food labels that can cause confusion and inevitably lead to health halos being created or spawn misinformation.

The thing I find hilarious when it comes to conversations surrounding organic foods is that people often don't even know what organic means. They have just subscribed to something without knowing what it actually entails. The number of times I've heard someone say "Well, they don't use pesticides" or some version of this moronic utterance is shocking.

Organic is a label that indicates that a food or agricultural product has been produced according to the USDA organic standards. And yes while organic food is grown without the use of synthetic chemicals, such as human-made pesticides and fertilisers, and does not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), this doesn't mean they don't use pesticides it just means they use 'natural pesticides' which sounds great but cause something is labelled natural doesn't suddenly make it healthy, remember arsenic is natural. Still, you wouldn't want to start ingesting that now, would you?

Anyway, is organic food worth the hefty price tag attached to it? For most of us, I would simply say no. If you are so rich, that price is of no concern, then fuck it, you might as well. But let me explain myself.

Firstly, while occupational exposure to pesticides can cause health problems, for most of us, we do not need to fear the level of pesticides in the foods we eat (despite what crunchie mums say on Instagram). Popularised lists like the Dirty Dozen show pesticide levels in your produce; however, even in the worst offenders, the levels appear to be far below the levels that would require concern. Also, if you are worried, you can do the old baking soda wash (15-minute soak in 1% baking soda solution), which research has shown can completely remove at least two common pesticides from the surface of produce like apples.

Given that most people don't eat enough fruits and vegetables, it seems stupid to create a narrative that creates more aversion to these foods. Fuck, the cost of living is high enough without slapping a stupid organic tax on it. Even the research looking at the topic as a whole comes to a similar conclusion. A 2020 systematic review evaluated the health effects of organic versus conventional foods and concluded that no definitive statement could be made on whether organic food consumption improved health. So even if you are paying the price for the more expensive meat or produce, it's not a given you are getting any more health benefits for your troubles (although probably supporting better farming practices, so ethical points, I guess).

It is a myth that organic fruits and vegetables are much more nutritious than conventional ones. Some might be slightly higher, but not by a significant amount, and actually, some organic produce can be lower in particular nutrients. Carrots might be marginally higher; however, tomatoes appear to be slightly lower. It depends on farm/region/season/fertiliser....

There is a lot that goes into this, and at the end of the day, who cares? Just make sure you are eating more fruit and vegetables in general, and you will be meeting your micronutrient and fibre needs. When we are talking about cost to nutritional level, I suggest buying the cheaper frozen options, as they can be just as nutritious, if not more so, since they are picked and frozen at peak ripeness.

In terms of meat, dairy and egg quality, in general, some nutrients might be enhanced in organic farming practices, but not as much as Instagram plebs would lead you to believe. The fatty acid profile is usually improved in grass-fed beef; there might be higher levels of specific vitamins and minerals, but not by an amount that would confer any fundamental differences to your health. Look at it like this, if I took identical people and gave them the same diets, on a calorie and macro basis, but one was given organic and one was given non-organic, you would not be able to tell the difference from a health standpoint (assuming it was a well-constructed diet). The cost of the diet would look incredibly different, but the health outcomes would be identical.

If, however, someone listens to the advice on social media and believes that because they can't afford organic vegetables and since the non-organic ones will somehow be bad for them because of pesticides or being GMO, they don't buy fruit and vegetables ... well, now their health will suffer. Surely getting some nutritious eggs in your diet, even if they aren't organic, is better than avoiding eggs all together.

Sound dietary practices shouldn't be pushed as something only for the privileged. With the proper education and shopping practices, you can easily create a nutritious diet on a budget, conferring just as many health benefits as the pompous twat who flexes that they only eat organic (ironically it's usually the type of person who's got more filler, implants and unnatural substances injected into their body... apparently there's a double standard in the vain elite).

If you want to buy organic or have a good local farm shop near you, go for it.

But if that option isn't in your budget... well, don't stress. If your diet has a wide variety of plant foods and good, nutritious meat, fish, and dairy options, then you need not worry as you will be getting all the micronutrients you need for good health. And that's what matters at the end of the day.

If I become rich, I'm not shopping organic... I am, however, flying business, so I don't have to sit with so many gross people in economy. That is an actual tangible benefit of paying more. Less cunts

Have you been tempted to buy a £300+ “food intolerance test” online because you’re feeling bloated, tired, or struggling with weight? And then suddenly, Instagram, as if it were listening (which it is), starts showing you adverts for these nonsensical tests.

Yes? Well, let’s get one thing clear:

Most of these tests are not only unhelpful but are a complete waste of your money. You would get more value from shitting in your hands and clapping than taking one of these tests. Even a quick Google search for these tests and you are hit with the message “there is no evidence that these tests can successfully identify a food intolerance”. Apparently, when people are struggling with health concerns, standard due diligence goes out the window.

Many at-home tests claim they can “diagnose” food intolerances by measuring:

• IgG antibodies in your blood

They often return a long list of “foods to avoid”, like eggs, dairy, gluten, and random fruits, leaving you overwhelmed and fearful of food. Removing 30 foods from your diet may accidentally eliminate something you were intolerant to, but it also opens you up to an overly restrictive diet and nutritional deficiencies. It reminds me of the quote, “even a broken clock is right twice a day,” which doesn’t mean you should use it to tell the time.

IgG tests do not diagnose food intolerance. If you don’t believe me, well, it seems that the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology “strongly discourages” this practice. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology calls the test a “myth” and recommends against using it. So I haven’t just come to this conclusion lightly. IgG antibodies may indicate exposure to a food, which is why the results often reveal alleged intolerances to foods you have happened to have recently eaten. In fact, some research suggests that higher IgG levels may reflect tolerance, rather than sensitivity. To quote the EFSA, “The presence of specific IgG antibodies indicates exposure to the food and does not indicate adverse reactions or intolerance. High IgG4 levels may even reflect the development of immunological tolerance.” I bet you’re feeling pretty stupid now if you bought one of those tests.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to support pulse testing, stool, or hair analysis. A controlled study has shown that kinesiology results are not reproducible and are no more accurate than guessing (just thought I'd add that before you start telling me about how some woman who smelt of cats and had lots of crystals in her flat somehow detected your intolerance to kidney beans).

The only valid intolerance test, a hydrogen breath test for lactose intolerance, is reliable for diagnosing lactose malabsorption, as it measures hydrogen production after lactose ingestion.

It is also essential to distinguish between intolerances and allergies. Allergies can be tested as they involve a reaction of the immune system. Diagnosis can be made through skin prick tests and blood tests that measure allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), as well as food or drug allergen challenges, which should always be medically supervised using consistent protocols to confirm or exclude food or drug allergies.

The best way to discover food intolerances is by

1. Keep a structured food and symptom diary:
Track what you eat, when symptoms occur, and their severity to identify patterns.

2. Trial an elimination and reintroduction protocol:

• Remove suspected foods for 2–4 weeks.

• Systematically reintroduce one at a time, observing symptoms.

3. Seek professional support:
A qualified dietitian or nutritionist can guide this systematically while ensuring you don’t unnecessarily restrict your diet.

Sometimes, certain foods may have a dose-dependent reaction (you may tolerate small amounts but not large amounts), so it may not need complete removal.

Bloating and digestive discomfort can have multiple causes, so be patient if you are stressed, it's that time of the month, or you have recently been partaking in the consumption of alcohol (which we know you probably did despite what your check in with me said) then it might not be an intolerance but a reminder to try and work on the foundations of good health first and foremost.

If you need help with that….. well, you know what to do (message me if you didn’t work that one out).

Microdosing …. This word seems to be ubiquitous with any new drug on the market? If you can take it for X, then surely you can microdose it to get Y. I feel like I first heard about microdosing when it came to mushrooms, but now it seems everything can be microdosed to make it sound like you are getting less of the risk while still benefiting from the drug.

Microdosing, if you weren’t aware, is the act of taking a fraction of the recommended dose of a drug. The practice dates back to the early 1990s, when it was used to safely study how a newly developed drug is absorbed, used and eliminated by the body. This then became popular with the use of psychedelics.

The thinking is that smaller amounts of a drug can still trigger its effects, but on a smaller scale and with reduced risk.

I will be honest, my initial reaction is if you are willing or want to take drug X, then just fucking take it, obviously at the lowest effective dose for what you are trying to achieve, but a lot of drugs need to be taken at a therapeutic dose high enough in order to be effective at which point you aren’t microdosing it, you are just taking it. Last week, I received around 20 videos from various pages (usually featuring a woman) that touted the benefits of microdosing GLP-1s on their ability to reduce inflammation. Now, again, I must be honest, my initial reaction is that these are people who want the benefits of weight loss but want to frame it so that it sounds like they aren’t taking it for this purpose; they are changing the narrative by saying microdosing and inflammation. I assumed that any improvements in inflammation are most likely due to fat loss, since adiposity (fat) is inflammatory. Therefore, while they claim to be taking it for lowering inflammation, it achieves this through fat loss. In essence, they are taking it for fat loss, but trying to present it in a different light. This would be akin to me saying I posted a topless selfie because I wanted to motivate others to go to the gym, when in reality it was probably more about getting some form of attention from people online. Yes, it might inspire some people to go to the gym, but there are other ways of doing this that won’t get me the attention that I'm secretly looking for. Just be honest, fuck it, it's like people who started dating after matching on Hinge or Tinder only to make up a fake story of how they met because they were embarrassed about using a dating app. Nobody cares as much as you think they do.

But as I said, this was my initial reaction. The important thing is what does the literature say. Firstly, I would like to say that this practice appears to be experimental and unauthorised; there are no established microdosing guidelines. There is also no reliable information available about the safety of this practice or its potential effects, whether positive or negative. Anything you see online touting the benefits is anecdotal at best.

Dose-titration phases in trials (e.g., 0.25 mg Semaglutide for 4 weeks) show some weight loss and mild metabolic improvements, but these doses are designed to improve tolerability before reaching therapeutic targets, rather than serving as effective long-term doses. With most research indicating dose-dependent benefits, higher doses correlate with greater weight loss, HbA1c reduction, and reductions in inflammatory markers.

While GLP-1 medications can lower inflammation, this benefit is predominantly tied to weight loss and improved blood sugar control, which they produce at clinically effective doses. Currently, there’s no research showing that microdosing alone significantly reduces inflammation. If your goal is to reduce inflammation, using these medications in a structured, medically supervised titration plan to reach effective doses, alongside anti-inflammatory lifestyle and nutritional changes, will be more effective than staying at low doses indefinitely.

There is more research emerging on how GLP-1s can help reduce systemic inflammation in certain conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and neurodegenerative diseases, so it is possible, although I am not currently convinced. It is coming to light that it can help cut cravings for alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, so there are definitely benefits outside of just weight loss. So, I am not dismissing the efficacy of microdosing; I have just not seen enough evidence yet to advise it. I am also not against the use of these drugs, but you must be improving dietary practices and must be resistance training alongside it anyway. As always, it depends on your analysis of the risk-to-reward ratio; however, for the most part, I would say that most GLP-1s have relatively good safety profiles and are generally well-tolerated. If you are obese, I would say the risk of remaining obese far outweighs the use of these drugs, especially when given under medical supervision.

Any way I will update you if new information comes to light on microdosing but for now if you aren’t already training hard, working on stress management, sleeping 7-8 hours a night and focusing on improving your nutritional practices then you probably have no business looking to micro dose this drug, especially if the only evidence you have for doing it is some influencer who has as many brain cells as she/he does qualifications.

As always I’ve been Chris the social reclusive clinical nutritionist who apparently resembles a drug dealer. (I do not sell drugs … just putting that out there in case my newsletter is one day used as evidence against me ).

Okay, so to recap, in Part 1, we discussed the impact that acute and chronic stress have on the body, particularly on hormones that can influence our food choices and the amount of food we consume. For some people, this can cause a reduction in food intake (especially in times of acute stress); however, in times of chronic stress, there seems to be an even split between those who overconsume calories (typically from more hedonic foods) and those who underconsume calories. Although given the obesity problem, I think there are more people eating their feelings than the research shows.

For today's newsletter, I think it's worth discussing the traits/characteristics that make someone more likely to overconsume or stress-eat. And then hopefully I can provide you with some actionable steps to help you avoid this from sabotaging you in the future.

From childhood, many of us learn to associate food with comfort, soothing, and reward. We were promised a tasty treat, like ice cream, if we behaved well or if our parents were trying to cheer us up after something bad had happened. Over time, eating becomes a learned coping mechanism for managing uncomfortable emotions, including stress, loneliness, or boredom. (As always, let's blame the parents.)

There seems to be a reciprocal relationship between reward and stress processing in the brain. Exposure to natural rewards buffers the effect of stressors on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity, and stress increases reward-seeking behaviour (e.g., intake of hyperpalatable food). It is a form of self-medication; we search out palatable foods because this helps to reduce the stress response. Foods (high in sugar, fat, and salt) can increase dopamine, providing temporary relief from stress and unpleasant emotions. Although this can cause you to be unhappy in your body as your weight increases, and this leads to more stress in the long run, so you can see the flaw in this coping strategy. It's like wanting to become better at swimming, so you put weights on your ankles to make it harder so you become a better swimmer, only the weights end up being too heavy and then you end up drowning …. Okay bit extreme but I like analogies that make just enough sense to make you think but are also equally nonsensical so you question my sanity in the process and yours for falling for the emotional eating trap.

There is an individual difference in the risk of reward-seeking behaviour. Individuals with higher reward sensitivity are more likely to seek palatable food as a coping mechanism, driven by an increased dopamine response to food under stress. I think this also combines with how much food noise someone may naturally have and whether they have other coping mechanisms in place. For example, if you have someone who is a self-proclaimed foodie, I can imagine they are more at risk of stress eating than, say, someone whose guilty pleasure is red wine. Stress increases our reward-seeking behaviour, but not everyone gets the same pleasure from food. Maybe because of my Crohn’s, I lost some of the pleasure I used to get from food, and therefore, this might play a role in why my appetite fucks off in times of stress rather than increasing. I also like to smoke (I know awful, right, but I am open about my faults), so while someone else might be deep throating chocolate when they are stressed, I chain smoke instead…. The same reward-seeking behaviour, just with different outcomes (and, no, this is not a healthy alternative, so I only mention it to illustrate the difference in reward-seeking behaviours; this is not part of the tips section).

Some people may also have better emotional regulation skills (than my emotionally stunted ass). People with limited emotional regulation tools may default to food to numb, distract, or soothe themselves during stress. Whereas, those with more adaptive regulation strategies (breathing, journaling, seeking connection) may cope without turning to food. I also think there is an obvious link to dieting history and people's relationship with food. Individuals with a history of chronic dieting or restriction may be more prone to overeating during stress due to: Psychological “permission” to eat when stressed; Stress reducing cognitive restraint, leading to “all or nothing” eating patterns and physiological restriction driving cravings when stress lowers mental defences.

This is why, when we are working to help someone lose weight, we want to take an approach that feels the least restrictive, so that we aren’t creating an environment that fosters an all-or-nothing approach, causing the inevitable slip-up to turn into an all-out meltdown. Traits like impulsivity and high neuroticism have also been linked to higher levels of emotional eating under stress. Therefore, we need to factor these into our approach when helping someone address their stress-eating episodes.

TIPS:

1: Build Non-Food Coping Strategies- if you build structure into your day so regular meal times, if you find yourself reaching for food away from these times you have a better indicator that maybe its fatigue or stress driving this increase in appetite and not hunger. Rather than reaching for food- off menu as it were try:

• Going for a walk, call a friend, or practice deep breathing when stress rises.

• Journaling can help you identify emotional triggers that lead to eating.

Pause and ask:

Am I physically hungry, or am I seeking comfort?
Slowing down can help you respond to your needs without defaulting to food. This is why I often tell my clients to have something like a protein bar or a healthy snack on hand in case, so if they do feel that it is hunger then they have something on hand that is pre approved as it were to grab, rather than using the excuse well they were caught short and apparently the only offer at the shop was a footlong chocolate bar…

2. Balance Blood Sugar

Eating balanced meals with protein, fiber, and healthy fats can reduce biological cravings driven by blood sugar swings, making emotional eating less likely. Also make sure you stay hydrated and if you are craving something sweet, well try a Pepsi max, zero calories and scratches that sweet itch rather than face fucking your daily calorie allowance while sat at your desk feeling sorry for yourself.

3. Improve Stress Management

Incorporate small daily stress-reducing practices:

• Short breathing exercises

• Gentle movement

• 5-minute mindfulness breaks

Or just take that stress and put it into your workout- nothing relieves stress better than lifting some heavy weights, punching a bag or having sex and you can do at least 2 of those at the gym… I mean you can do all of those but one might get you kicked out… it also usually requires another person … or at least I hope it does and if you are flying solo … just go home you dirty fucker.

Anyway hope you found that interesting/helpful … and if not … well hey go tell someone who cares… but this is a stress free zone

Emotion… that seven-letter word that is so simple yet can mean so many different things to so many different people in so many different circumstances. In essence, I guess emotion is part of what makes us human. They helped us to evolve by allowing us to respond to threats and opportunities; they also play a role in how we remember things, and they can also impact our physiological state (increased heart rate, sweating). We are all just big bags of emotion, and while some of us show these more easily, we are all impacted by them; even schizophrenics still experience emotion, despite probably not showing it. We all have a level of emotional intelligence ( although, like traditional intelligence, this seems to be lacking in the general population) and a level of emotional baggage that we carry around with us (from little suitcases to full-on removal van-sized).

You might be thinking at this point, Where is this newsletter going, Chris? And you are right to ask that question, as this is as strange a start as any, and that’s saying something. Well, I am currently going through a period of…. Let’s say heightened emotions, and not the fun ones (think sad music and staring out a window, not rainbows and jumping gayly). While I won’t delve into the details, as this is both personal and somewhat irrelevant to a nutritional newsletter, it has prompted me to consider an interesting question that has fascinated me for some time.

Why is it that in times of emotional distress, some people seem to eat their feelings (emotional eating.. sorry if that was an insensitive way to write that), and some people completely lose their appetite? I am in the latter camp. I can typically put away food, so you can usually tell something's not right with me when I can’t even finish a quarter of a plate of food, when I typically inhale it and then go back for seconds. However, other friends and clients often have the opposite reaction, feeling as though they are unable to quench their unrelenting appetite, and this is typically not for things like broccoli or kiwis.

So what is happening?

It turns out that this is a fairly complex area, which shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the complexity of emotions and the various types of stress, as well as how we each respond to them.

Emotional eating refers to the tendency to eat in response to emotions. Stress and negative mood can influence appetite in opposite ways, prompting some individuals to eat more (hyperphagia) and others to eat less (hypophagia). Generally, the literature suggests that acute stress is associated with decreased eating, whereas chronic stress is associated with increased eating. If this is correct, at least it tells me I’m only ever acutely stressed…. Well, that’s a relief (he said, crying onto his keyboard).

Stress, unsurprisingly, can alter the hormones responsible for appetite regulation. This explains the different eating patterns of a person when exposed to stress. There is more to the equation as there are gender differences (apparently women are more likely to turn to food where men are more likely to turn to alcohol or smoking…. LADS…), learned behaviour through childhood experiences/trauma, along with differences in physiological, environmental, psychological, cultural, and social factors, so we won’t honestly answer this in a newsletter for your specific circumstances.

Acute stress, such as the sudden noise coming from the bushes next to you, signifying the presence of a big, scary tiger, typically results in an ‘active fight-and-flight response’ with activation of the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary system and consequent release of catecholamines (adrenaline & noradrenaline). Noradrenaline has been shown to suppress appetite during acute stress. Think about it, if our evolutionary reaction to acute stress were to want to sit on our ass crying into a cheeseburger as we bitched about our ex, we would have never made it this far as a species.

Chronic stress, on the other hand, is a different matter; the result is hyperactivation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, producing Corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and glucocorticoids (cortisol). This is where it gets a little complicated. CRH actually produces an anorectic effect (reducing appetite); however, CRH results in the release of cortisol downstream from the adrenals, which works to increase appetite (orexigenic). A person exposed to chronic stress either undereats or overeats, as stress results in the production of both orexigenic and anorexigenic substances. This is probably why, in times of stress, we see a roughly 40% increase and a 40% decrease in caloric intake, while approximately 20% of people do not change their feeding behaviours during stressful periods (these people are just dead inside… emotionally speaking). Why you either overeat or undereat is therefore the result of the complex interplay between your hormones, environment, and learned behaviours (coping strategies).

Most studies I have found indicate that during times of stress, people tend to opt for more hyperpalatable/hedonic/calorie-dense food choices, such as doughnuts, cakes, and sweets. The increased eating that follows may merely be a pleasurable activity that helps counteract the negative feelings associated with stress, as food intake has been shown to increase calmness and improve mood by decreasing irritability and arousal. In the absence of these hyperpalatable foods, we are more likely to see the anorectic impact of stress. The influence of stress on weight gain, therefore, may depend on the intensity and duration of the stress, as well as the types of food available for consumption.

Hopefully, this hasn’t just confused you further, but if it has, don’t worry – in part 2 (next week's newsletter), I will provide you with some tips and tricks to help reduce your risk of emotional eating/self-sabotage.

As always, I’ve been Chris, and you have been a top cunt for supporting x

I recently attended a wedding in Italy, which I have to say was gorgeous, and since the couple had already done the legal part here in the UK, it meant the service was around the 20-minute mark… this is my type of service. Long enough to take stock of the beautiful situation and enjoy the moment of two people professing their love to each other in front of family and friends, but not too long where I have to worry that my head might be burning or that my questionable attention span had failed me and I would be fidgeting much to the annoyance of those around me… I’m not great at sitting still unless I’m engaged in something that can capture my focus, like writing seems to do for me. Also, while I live in gym clothes and sweatpants, I have to be honest, it's nice to scrub up and put on a suit occasionally. I know you can’t polish a turd but I think I go from looking like a street drug dealer to more mafia boss energy, or at least someone higher up on the drug dealing ladder. Think the days of me looking ‘respectable’ in the traditional sense left at the same time neck, head and face tattoos appeared, and I went back to having a skin head. I’m not complaining, by the way; I like how I look, even if my parents don’t.

Anyway, what can I say about a wedding in Italy, beautiful scenery, gorgeous food and expensive taxis to boot. It was a great time, and as we had a little gym in my hotel, I was still able to get some good training in and actually with a lack of gluten free and dairy free options in Italian cuisine I actually usually end up eating healthier in these countries cause snack options typically boil down to just fruit and food options at restaurants usually leave me with chicken and veg or a good fresh fish option and if I’m lucky some potatoes. So, apart from the relatively weak air conditioning in my room that was about as effective as an 80-year-old asthmatic man coughing on me, meaning my sleep score was in the low 60s for most of the trip, I have to say that, for the most part, travelling while making things more complicated, shouldn’t be seen as an excuse to go full fuck it mode… like so many people do.

There is usually a way to stay on plan even away from your usual home environment. This doesn’t mean you can’t have fun or that you have to get to a gym…. But if your idea of fun is eating your body weight in cheese and seeing how high you can get your blood alcohol level before passing out, then chances are you are coming back from that holiday feeling worse for wear and having to pay for your sins. Seems a bit strange, doesn’t it? Is it normal that for so many of us, a holiday is a time to give up or change the behaviours that help us look and feel our best? Okay, some holidays like a stag or hen to Vegas will probably test the limits of your liver's capability or how well you can balance health with hedonism. Still, when your foundations are strong, a holiday should be a chance to lower stress levels from work and have more time to be more active and prioritise our health, rather than abusing our bodies. Or maybe I am weird for thinking that? If I say Brits abroad, what does your mind go to? Guessing it’s not health related….apparently British people believe the word holiday is French for get shit faced and abuse the locals.

Now, do you have any summer holidays coming up? Weddings to attend? Are you worried about falling off your new health kick? You don’t have to exercise like I did when away, although when you change your mentality to ‘I get to exercise’ rather than ‘I have to’, then why wouldn’t you? You also wont have to be quite as restrictive with your food as choices, but if you insist on drowning your body in glorious cheese, red wine and tiramisu, while I’m sure you might be content in the short term, if you end up being uncomfortable in your own skin as a result of piling on the pounds ….. well seems like your approach to happiness is highly flawed. I still enjoyed a few drinks (I know on rare occasions) and some gelato (dairy-free), so I still enjoyed myself, but I made sure the balance of the trip was still supporting my short and long-term goals.

Remember, your diet refers to the food you habitually eat. Typically, we have always taken this word to imply a deficit and restriction, but it doesn’t. We will go in and out of periods of being in a deficit when we are looking to lose weight, but your diet principles should remain the same, whether you are maintaining weight or trying to lose it. When we go on holiday, we may want to eat a little more, so trying to remain in a deficit may not be conducive to the freedom you want to have on holiday, especially when enjoying that extra glass of red wine and perhaps trying the local dessert that’s a speciality of the area. So, simply returning to a maintenance level is all we have to do. However, this is common sense, and if we all had it, the world would be a better place. But most people, instead of just relaxing their usual diet to allow for a bit more flexibility, throw their entire diet out the window and are somehow surprised when eating four pizzas in the space of two days leads them to feeling bloated and a few pounds heavier.

I feel like this newsletter has just turned into a rant, but you can understand the frustration by how stupid people are when approaching holidays. And outside of not behaving like an absolute cunt on your holiday, which is the easiest way to prevent feeling worse when you get back, the next step is to get back to your training plan and controlling calorie intake once you return. Sometimes we need a week off from tracking or a week off the gym to fully recover, and that’s okay. However, remember that we are the product of what we repeatedly do, so just get back to it once you're back.

Or give up …. that sounds like it will help you feel better (yup, sarcasm - this is how you know I’m annoyed).

If you need help building the foundations to maintain progress even when travelling without feeling restricted, then email me at info@tlc.fit and start building a better lifestyle today. We're currently running a 4-month promotional offer, so there's no time like the present.

As always, I’ve been Chris, and if anything in this newsletter offended you, know that that is okay, and you are entitled to feel that way, but you aren’t entitled to bother me with your opinion xx

We have all heard a parent blame sugar for their kid behaving like an absolute cunt before, its a given right? Too much sugar = hyperactivity? Picture the scene: it’s Little Johnny's birthday party (actually, given the woke names coming out now, it's more likely to be something like Little Apple, Maple, or Rain…), and unsurprisingly, there's an abundance of cakes, chocolate, and other sweet and decadent treats on hand. Sure some mum will have expressed concern so their will be a gluten free section or a vegan or no seed oil selection as well and maybe some raw milk (fuck me I hate people)… But you get the idea, it’s a special occasion, so why not put on a spread?

Now little Maple (God she sounds like a slut already) tucks into the cake early with an extra bit of icing. She inhales her daily recommended intake of sugar within 30 minutes… oh, here come the zoomies (a term usually used for dogs when they go nuts and run around in circles, typically after a bath). Suddenly, you hear a scream, and it appears that one of the kids has smacked the other and then run off… The mother of little Maple, embarrassed, tries to reassure everyone that this is out of character; she isn’t used to this much sugar and artificial flavourings as they are not usually allowed in her house (this is a lie, but she says it with conviction which is enough these days for people to believe anything). The sugar has hijacked Little Maple’s usual peaceful composure, making her into this spawn of Satan that is running around terrorising the party. Little Maple is suffering from the dreaded “sugar high”.

Most of the others nod in agreement, grateful that their child seems to have a better tolerance for the white powder now coursing through most of their little bodies (sugar … we are still talking about sugar….Although the zoomies is 100% more likely with the other type of white powder you are now thinking about).

The interesting thing is that there is research looking into the effects of sugar on behaviour or cognition in children. Can you guess what they found?

The meta-analysis showed that despite widespread parental belief in the "sugar high," rigorous testing finds no reliable link between sugar intake and hyperactivity or attention issues in children.

This is where it gets even more interesting, while the sugar high itself is a myth for kids (although I’m sure they probably suffer some form of inevitable crash afterwards, passing out in a heap), it turns out the real effect is actually on the parents. A study found that when mothers were told their sons were given sugar, they then rated their child’s behaviours as more hyperactive, even when the child was given a placebo and had therefore consumed no sugar at all. So expectations and societal associations, rather than sugar itself, often drive perceived behaviour changes. Videotapes of the mothers' interactions with their sons revealed that they were more likely to criticise their children when they believed they were “high” on sugar, despite them again being given the placebo.

So in the little scene I set at the beginning it seems like Little Maple was just being a cunt… maybe cause it was her birthday and she was the centre of attention, perhaps the hypothetical kid she slapped had it coming… who knows… but sadly mums what we can tell is blaming sugar doesn’t seem to hold water.

Feed your kids a healthy, balanced diet rich in lean proteins, a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and a combination of healthy fats and wholegrains… You don’t have to fear sugar; just don’t let them only eat what they want. At that age, they would consider a diet of ice cream, chips, and cookie dough a balanced diet… Okay, so a kid would likely choose the Standard American Diet if they had the option…. (God says a lot about how childish adults really are.)

Look, Sugar doesn’t make kids “go wild,” but the more ultra-processed foods in their diet (combination of high fat, high sugar and high salt), well, it’s up to you, but I don’t know many healthy and happy adults who spent their youth face fucking McDonalds and Pizza express.

As always, I’ve been Chris, your favourite Clinical Nutritionist and someone who officially prefers dogs to humans… but you, my reader, are allowed to stay.

One of the most common conversations I have with clients is around them thinking that their metabolism is somehow broken. This is probably not aided by plebs on the internet continually pushing ways to hack your metabolism, like it’s a bit of software. The simple truth, unfortunately, for most people, is that there is nothing wrong with their metabolic rate. When overweight individuals have their metabolisms measured, they are often surprised and disappointed to find that it is operating at predicted levels. People rarely have fast or slow metabolisms; instead, they tend to have either healthy diets and active lifestyles or unhealthy diets and sedentary lifestyles. That one friend we all have who seems to eat what they want yet never puts on any weight probably has a very high level of NEAT, or non-exercise activity thermogenesis, meaning that they probably fidget a lot, struggle to sit still, and therefore have a very high level of energy expenditure. At the same time, while you often see them inhaling a Big Mac, they have low levels of food noise, so while their food choices are questionable, they rarely eat a lot of total daily calories.

Even when we look at hormonal issues like hypothyroidism, once you have had your levels assessed, if your levels are low, you will likely be given thyroid medication like levothyroxine, which will correct this issue (although it can take a little time to find the correct dosage). In terms of endocrine disturbances like PCOS or even menopause, when we account for age, BMI and activity levels, it seems that while your hormone profile might predispose you for central weight gain, your metabolic rate is still operating at predicted levels so if we can maintain muscle mass and calorie intake you can maintain your current body composition levels or improve it.

So, when someone says I’m eating 1,200 calories and not losing weight, what is actually happening? A research paper aimed to answer this exact question. They took 224 obese individuals who claimed to eat 1,200 kcal/day yet weren’t losing weight. After ruling out “slow metabolism”, what they found might shock you… Or might not if, like me, you have been doing this job long enough.

What they found during the trial was that, on average, the obese individuals underreported their calorie intake by an average of 47%. So, while claiming to consume around 1,200 calories, in reality, they were closer to 1,800 calories, which is a significant enough difference that, rather than being in a deficit, they might even be in a slight surplus or at least in maintenance, hence not seeing any weight loss. This is further exacerbated by the fact that these individuals also overreported their physical activity levels by 51%....

Now, I think the critical part of this to note is that we aren’t calling these people liars. They aren’t underreporting their food intake intentionally (although some might be). The study noted that the underreporting did not appear to be a deliberate deception, as subjects were clearly distressed when they received their study results. Food tracking can be fickle at times, and if you are busy and often eat in a rush, many of us underestimate our total calorie intake. How many times have you grabbed a handful of nuts, forgetting to add them, not tracked the oil you cooked with or misread the calorie information on a packet? Portion illusions and calorie density can sabotage even the most diligent. I write this not to insult, but to hopefully provide a better understanding of why it is most likely not a metabolic issue, but rather a simple issue of calorie intake. This should empower you to take action, assuming you weren’t using it as an excuse to blame your broken metabolism for why you can’t lose the weight you want to.

It is also essential to recognise that weight loss may not always show up on the scales in the first week or two, so be patient and consistent with your efforts. If you are not easily triggered, track every food and liquid that touches your lips, and you will start to see weight loss if you can consistently stick to your deficit (and yes, this includes on weekends).

Make sure you are resistance training to either maintain or build muscle, which will help improve or maintain your metabolic rate over time, and stop exercising to burn calories; this is inefficient and ineffective. Keep those steps high and lift heavy ass weight.

Now, in rare cases, you might be sleepwalking to the fridge at night and be genuinely unaware of this. Sleep-related eating disorder (SRED) is a well-documented phenomenon. It’s a type of parasomnia (like sleepwalking) where a person partially wakes during the night and eats, often high-calorie, rich foods, without full awareness. I feel like this is clutching at straws, but if you are on medication like Zolpidem/Ambien, you are more at risk, and it might be worth booking into a sleep clinic. Or lock the kitchen or make sure you only have fruit, vegetables in your cupboards, and if anything, you might end up getting more fibre into your diet without knowing it …… god knows more Americans could benefit from that..

As always your favourite Clinical Nutritionist and pleb catcher

Chris